The mirrorless camera and the looming lack of exposure knowledge

Monday 23 May 2022, 20:02 by Nando Harmsen | 5,484 views | 13 comments

This article was translated from Dutch with the help of AI. Read the original.

With the arrival of the mirrorless camera, photographers gained a digital screen in the viewfinder. This simulates the exposure setting, so you can see at a glance whether the exposure is correct.

Does this convenience have a negative effect on our knowledge of photography? Or is it not too bad?

In the past, you had to know something about light, aperture, shutter speed and ISO, and the relationship between the three. If you knew too little about it, your photo would be too light or too dark.

Digital photography gave us the ability to check the result and, if necessary, correct it in the next photo.

The result of the exposure setting is immediately visible on a live view screen. With mirrorless cameras such as this Nikon Z6 II, it is also visible in the electronic viewfinder.
Mirrorless cameras now allow you to check the result before the photo is taken, both on the LCD screen and in the electronic viewfinder.

This is of course a fantastic feature that offers many benefits.

The recently published article about using manual exposure received several comments from readers who pointed out these benefits of mirrorless cameras. If a photo is too dark, the image in the electronic viewfinder will also be too dark. And vice versa, of course.

Manual exposure has never been easier than with a mirrorless camera such as this Canon EOS R6. The result of your setting is visible in real time.
This means you can adjust the camera settings based on the result on your screen until the exposure is as you want it. In short, turn the dials for aperture, shutter speed or ISO until it is right.

Do you consciously choose one of those three settings to get the exposure right, or do you start with one of the three settings and see whether you can get it right? If that does not work, which one do you choose? Do you return the previous setting to its original value, or do you keep going until it is right?

Unless there is a good reason for it, an ISO of 6,400 will rarely be necessary. So be careful which setting you change to get the exposure right when you rely on what you see on your screen or in the electronic viewfinder.
This may sound a little strange. But it is a real danger. Since the result of changing settings is immediately visible, do you still consciously choose the 'right' correction? Or is there a risk that it becomes arbitrary?

As a photographer, you of course know perfectly well that you cannot simply change one of the three exposure settings without consequences. If depth of field is important, you should leave that setting alone when correcting an exposure that is not correct.

Be careful with shutter speed, so that it does not become so slow that movement from your subject becomes visible in the image, or that you can no longer hold the camera steady.

Be careful with ISO, so that it does not become so high that noise becomes a source of annoyance.

The exposure setting on this Fujifilm GFX100 may result in a well-exposed image, but the settings are not optimal. Unless you really need such a fast shutter speed, of course.
By changing exposure settings arbitrarily while only looking at the exposure of the image, you risk ending up with very illogical settings. I have seen it happen.

This can certainly happen when one correction does not produce the desired result, after which a second setting is used on top of it.

A photo of your family on the terrace in the sun with ISO 3200, an aperture of f/22 and 1/1600 of a second is simply unnecessary, even if the exposure is correct.

Simply looking at your screen and turning the settings until the exposure is as you want it may not be the best approach. Be conscious of which settings you adjust.
Knowledge of good exposure is therefore important, so you can make the right or best available adjustment when a photo in your electronic viewfinder is too light or too dark.

Simply turning the three dials until it is right is not the right way. However tempting that may be with mirrorless cameras.

What do you think? Do you get the idea that there are mirrorless photographers who started by randomly turning the dials until it looked right? Or do you think it is not that bad?

Let us know in a comment below this post.

Share: WhatsApp Facebook

About the author

Nando Harmsen has been photographing for more than 40 years. He specialises in wedding photography and landscape photography. Nando also gives talks, workshops, masterclasses and photo trips, and regularly reviews new and interesting equipment.

Wildlife photography and switching to mirrorless
by Evert Doorn
Review: Sony A6700 APS-C mirrorless camera
by Nando Harmsen
Review: Canon EOS R8 full-frame mirrorless camera
by Nando Harmsen
Review: Sony A7R V mirrorless camera
by Nando Harmsen
Olympus's Live Bulb in practice
by Nando Harmsen
Video: 5 reasons to use your camera's viewfinder
by Elja Trum

Show every article in Other

home

13 comments

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 10:48 | reply
Als je belicht zoals de camera het aangeeft, dan krijg je vooral een heel neutraal belicht beeld met een vlakke belichting. Dat is vaak niet zo interessant. Veel fotografen, jij ook Nando, passen regelmatig ETTR toe. Dat is een correctie op de belichting die de camera aangeeft. Dat is een bewuste keuze van de fotograaf. Je moet dus wel degelijk kennis hebben over hoe je je belichting instelt op de camera. Bovendien kan je de belichting ook gebruiken als creatief element in de fotografie door bewust over- of onderbelichten.
Nando, met dit artikel zet je de mensen nog eens aan het denken. Een goede zaak.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

RAWshooter wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 11:37 | reply
Hoezo word je dom als je kunt zien wat de belichting oplevert? Spiegelreflex-camera’s, die zijn pas dom.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Ron wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 12:02 | reply
Iedereen maakt foto’s maar slechts weinigen zijn fotograaf.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Rein Reijseger wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 12:31 | reply
Het is juist een prachtig hulpmiddel. Vooral voor mensen die moeite hebben (in theoretische voorbeelden) de samenwerking te begrijpen tussen sluitertijd, diafragma en iso. Je ziet in de praktijk constant wat je aan het doen bent.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Liesbeth Verkade wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 12:52 | reply
Vraagje aan RAWshooter: wat is er dom aan een spiegelreflex?
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Hans Smits wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 13:13 | reply
Belichting regelen we door Sluitertijd en/of Diafragma en/of ISO. Of we dit nu door de camera laten doen of zelf maakt niet uit ZOLANG iedereen zich bewust is dat Sluitertijd, Diafragma en ISO ieder impact hebben op een tweede factor. Sluitertijd beinvloed scherpte bewegend onderwerp. Diafragma beinvloed scherpte diepte en ISO beinvloed de hoeveelheid ruis. Zelf vertel ik eerst het bij effect en daarna dat je er ook nog eens je belichting mee kan beinvloeden. Zolang men dat in gedachte houd makt het niet uit of de belichting automatisch gaat of niet.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Ben Fienieg wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 13:16 | reply
Nando, ik denk dat het voor een ieder die zich serieus bezig houdt met fotografie niets uit maak of ze met een camera met spiegel of een camera zonder spiegel werken. Deze mensen zullen de camera goed kennen, de belichtingsdriehoek goed kennen en hun creativiteit weten te bepalen met gebruikmaking van deze kennis.
Het artikel zal hopelijk mensen motiveren om meer aandacht te besteden aan een goed belichte en technisch goed uitgevoerde foto. Ook misschien om de volledig op auto fotograferende mensen en extra motivatie te geven om de fantastische mogelijkheden van de hedendaagse camera’s volledig te gaan benutten met of zonder spiegel.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Van Camp wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 13:33 | reply
Je hebt gelijk je moet eerst weten wat je fotografeert , je camera instellen met het doel bewuste instelling dan de rest aanpassen volgens de goede belichtings driehoek , daarna kun je nog kiezen voor leer of binder licht volgens kou keuzen
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Gert wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 13:58 | reply
En als de lichtsterkte van je display te hoog staat heeft dat als gevolg dat het beeld dat er voor de opname goed uitzag, toch veel te donker blijkt als je het nadien bekijkt.
Er gaat niks boven een goed belichtingshistogram.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Ben Fienieg wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 14:28 | reply
Daar heeft Gert volledig gelijk in.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Marijke wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 15:02 | reply
Maak 50 foto's van verschillende soorten scènes, draai daarbij aan de knoppen tot het beeld je aardig voorkomt. Plak de 50 foto's in een album en schrijf de exif-gegevens erbij. Dan zie je meteen hoe onlogisch je gewerkt hebt, en hoe je tot kwalitatief betere resultaten kunt komen.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Lauran wrote on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 17:06 | reply
Fotografie is een vak. Iedereen noemt zich tegenwoordig fotograaf. Voor een vak heb je een opleiding nodig en dan ga je het pas leren. Het meeste kan men dan ook afdoen als pulp. Het vak zou beschermd moeten worden.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Stefanie wrote on Wednesday 25 May 2022 at 15:06 | reply
Met al dit soort hulpmiddelen heb je (bijna) geen vakkennis meer nodig en wordt het 'vak' fotografie wel steeds minder een 'vak'. Je onderscheiden gebeurt steeds minder door skills, gelukkig is er nog niks uitgevonden wat het 'oog' van de fotograaf kan vervangen
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Have your say

Please note: Articles older than a week can only be commented on by signed-in visitors.
Would you still like to comment? sign in or create a free account.

Become a better photographer every week

A practical photography tip in your inbox every week.
39,178 photography enthusiasts already receive the tips! More about the weekly mail. Or keep up to date via Facebook. Sign-up secured with Google reCaptcha.

Elja Trum

Photofacts; everything to do with photography!

Would you like to take better photos and keep up with what is happening in photography? Photofacts publishes articles that teach you something about photography — from a product announcement to a practical shooting tip or a look at a website. Photofacts covers photography every day and is a hobby project of Elja Trum's that got out of hand. The articles are written by a team of volunteer authors. If you would enjoy writing one or more articles for Photofacts, do get in touch.More about Photofacts

Photofacts is made possible in part by